Daytona 24h - best AC track option?

[Dirk Steffen]

With the 24h race coming up - which is the best version to race the AI in Assetto Corsa with?

Is there one where mixed fields actually work well (GT3 + GT4) ?

 

[speedrcr]

Study mountainpeak as I see you already have it in the editor. There is a reason it is setup the way it is.

Actually tested your methodology and have an understanding of this more than what you are assuming. There is people that do read the track modding tutorials, and especially took yours into consideration. So let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

What I found was that you needed to put an extra barrier on the banks as the cars also seem to drift (not the sliding kind) towards the outside (just a little) if there's not enough of a buffer between the wall and valid track. It presents a new behavior of the Ai deflecting or un-naturally "flinch" from this virtual barrier.

Example is they reach the virtual border and "flinch" when there's still a decent amount of distance away from the wall. I was able to find a better balance not making that particular change and without impacting the actual competitive race line.

What isn't being considered is real testing and results versus what is assumed works on other tracks won't create more issues. In conclusion, Ai (1-3 Ai players in 27+), would react to the valid track that was "bounded" (about a foot) inside of the wall, still at times Ai would go high on the bank and would act more erratic and less stable on the bank than before. Further reacting to an invisible wall, so further complicating the issue. And what I mean by less stable is when you try to pass at high speed, you could pass the Ai without it jerking to the inside trying to correct itself. Whereas with latest update they follow their line with more competence.

It's not perfect but if you consider how many cars statistically fail or retire in a race it's been about on par. ~1-5% depending on how many Ai you actually use, and the amount of CPU resources available for the Ai to use.

In extensive testing seen a direct relationship to CPU strength and the system having more resources to make quicker calculations also plays in a big way. One test with a first gen i7 (970) we found more wrecks compared to a more current i7 (4700k), an AMD 9590, and AMD 9370. This is not a full blame on "hardware", just that it needs to be considered just as much.
This was found in testing the valid track being moved to inside of the wall on one of the banks versus one not having that change. It seemed to not "fix" the issue when there was also another factor in play as well.

What was deduced is that making that change you explain above didn't exhibit better characteristics but impacted the racing line and Ai not racing as competently. Conclusion is that by making the change you suggest didn't give the results wanted, but actually minimizing the area that was detectable as valid track. The area being that some run off areas on the back stretch and before the pit entrance gave the Ai a "wider" track to race within and then in dramatically reducing this area the Ai would have a "jerky" path in those areas.

Not saying your observations are incorrect, but perhaps other areas had more of an impact than what you assumed.

(Note: This mention is applicable to most banked tracks and it's intention is meant to address the concerns with Ai on banks of banked ovals or other tracks in general with these features, this was not to discuss a certain track)

 

[LilSki]

Funny... When I set it up like mountainpeak the AI work perfectly fine. Strange how that works....

Only the oval was fixed. The infield is still a disaster. Oh and also no changes needed to be made to the track to fix this. Trust me I know how the AC AI works. I have done AI for many top rated tracks besides my own. I have studied them extensively. The edge lines ARE as important as the main line. You will see them screw up here in a few spots in the infield. Just so happens so is the boundary line where they have issues.

 

[Terra21]

yes lilski definately knows what he is talking about. i had the same issues with daytona ai and a couple of other tracks.and lilski's tips regarding surfaces etc.. was the key. now they all work fine..

 

[Michael Hornbuckle]

Lemans would be a great candidate for AI improvement if any of you guys have time.

 

[Amir Vodokotlic]

On youtube there is video of new version of daytona from alien racing.....

It has improved Ai (pathing, mesh changes, boundary marking for ai)

just did few tests and GT3 are perfect now, no wobbling, race close to the outside wall of banking.

however LMP1 Porsche is a mess, they're way too fast and can't do 2-3 laps without smashing or clipping some random part of track.

 

[LilSki]

On youtube there is video of new version of daytona from alien racing.....

It has improved Ai (pathing, mesh changes, boundary marking for ai)

just did few tests and GT3 are perfect now, no wobbling, race close to the outside wall of banking.

however LMP1 Porsche is a mess, they're way too fast and can't do 2-3 laps without smashing or clipping some random part of track.

It's a little better. They still slam the wall on the start which is unacceptable. Grid spots are also too close together causing slow start. The inside line is still a mess and will likely cause issues if an AI does decided to go left of the yellow line. And the outside line is still outside the wall.

Just let the 20 AI run 9 laps in LMP1 Porsche with my line and not a single car crashed or retired.They never hit the wall. No "flinching" and lots of side by side racing on the oval parts.

Anyway I'm done here. Not wasting anymore time on an illegal conversion.

 

[speedrcr]

It's a little better. They still slam the wall on the start which is unacceptable. Grid spots are also too close together causing slow start. The inside line is still a mess and will likely cause issues if an AI does decided to go left of the yellow line. And the outside line is still outside the wall.

Just let the 20 AI run 9 laps in LMP1 Porsche with my line and not a single car crashed or retired.They never hit the wall. No "flinching" and lots of side by side racing on the oval parts.

Anyway I'm done here. Not wasting anymore time on an illegal conversion.

I really don't know what your problem is here, when someone does some good you find it useful to only point out what you did or even what they did was bad...nothing in a "constructive" context...EVER! There's constructive criticism and then there's what you do, which is just naysayer BS half the time.

Then you go on a rant to "traduce" one's work. No wonder plenty of people have told me not to pay you any attention and filter through your crap to actually find solutions.

First off the line that was produced in the update does not cause the "crash" at the start or the behaviors you speak of. I think you're a bit stubborn to the fact and don't like it when someone points out you maybe incorrect in some assumptions. Granted you know a few things but I think your ego is becoming very apparent these days.

Also on the bit about "illegal" conversion...it has been found several times in court in the US and abroad that a mod that someone does using what you call "illegal content" is not so. Illegal content is when you use that content for profit. There's no profit program or donation gathering, so on the "illegal content" bit, that's your opinion. For hobby ventures it is not illegal and I'd appreciate you not retort "donkey dun" you know nothing about. "Donkey dun" you ask? First off you had said this was a SimRaceway rip...and you are incorrect. To be correct it was a port to Assetto of a conversion to rFactor that was done without developer's consent. The artist is never involved and I'll bet you that the artist could give a "care". If you want to boil down to semantics I was informed the source for this track comes from this very download section here. (I personally picked up on the Port and made needed corrections and improvements). I even IM'd you about this, but you're stubborn I can see.

If you had a few friends at actual developers you would know they more than likely wouldn't give a care and appreciate the fact someone is continuing their work or it's been appreciated in that sense. I have a few and they would appreciate if their work was carried on and appreciated.

As far as the source of this track you speak of, here it is:

http://www.racedepartment.com/threads/daytona-rc.119087/

Also the "port" that Aspec787 did is also "illegal" in your context LilSki. Yep the only Daytona in the downloads.....as that was ported over from GTR2; in which that port was not done with the NASCAR RACING 2003 developer's permission as well.
The original was done by James Burroughs, and he did at the time an outstanding port from N2003, along with a few fixes for GTR2.
A couple people like LilSki wouldn't shut up and just enjoy the track, and it was taken down at a few places as well back in 2007. This download below is a port of that content:

http://www.racedepartment.com/downloads/daytona.2495/

Now if you want to argue this was a rip from Simraceway, be my guest. You can see obviously that what was the source.

I didn't port this and it was out there on the internet already, and so waht I did what James Burroughs did years ago and decided to clean it up only to be lambasted by someone that doesn't have their ego in check.

Also here's my thoughts on the matter, if someone has done a decent conversion and the content can be improved, and with the life expectancy of Assetto being another 2years maybe. I don't see expending all my time building one from scratch. Sure make the improvements in the areas that need it and be done.

This is not "ripping" away customers from a game that's already dead and support for it is even lacking at this time. So do I feel ethically right....yes. They made their money and could care less about a single mod. I think a few of you take this "ethics" BS to heart too much. If it was a modder working on a similar project and didn't give explicit permission, that's one thing and I'm a strong critic of this, but for this...you're mincing meat.

This is coming from someone that's been modding for 10+ years and have been involved in the BF2, ArmA, and other modding communities.

So if anyone wants to blame anyone for bringing these 2 downloads down there at RaceDepartment you can blame LilSki for so adamantly pushing the "illegal content" context.

 

[speedrcr]

Funny... When I set it up like mountainpeak the AI work perfectly fine. Strange how that works....

Only the oval was fixed. The infield is still a disaster. Oh and also no changes needed to be made to the track to fix this. Trust me I know how the AC AI works. I have done AI for many top rated tracks besides my own. I have studied them extensively. The edge lines ARE as important as the main line. You will see them screw up here in a few spots in the infield. Just so happens so is the boundary line where they have issues.

Also while we're at it, find it funny your video is using an outdated track....
To add the problems you speak of in terms to "track limits" not being defined properly, are only in oval sections and not on the infield sections. Barrier wall overlaps track and this is known. The behavior you like to point out in your video is Ai acting natively. Track limits are explicitly defined and if your line is to blame or Ai in general acting erratically, can't help that.
Conclusions to your last rant, had you taken a look at the FBX file you would obviously see the difference. You exported it into the Editor before, find it odd you like to point out infield section and you won't show any screenshots, yet you want to say explicitly it was done horribly. This actually gave me a laugh, thanks.

As I said before, ego is quite apparent on this one.

 

[LilSki]

Not sure where to start here but I'll go with the origins of this track.

SRW daytona

Your AC Daytona...

Just because you don't ask money for something doesn't suddenly make things OK. Also just because you got this track from a source other than SRW doesn't magically make it not originally from SRW. SRW paid to have this track built and they paid to licensed it to be in their game. You can try to rationalize it all you want but this is a stolen and illegal conversion.

If you spent months or even years on a project and some punk comes along and converts it to another sim with no credit given to you and claimed it as their own. Are you going to sit there and tell me you would be OK with that?

And now we have the AI line. I only fixed the oval section as that was giving the most trouble and I'm not going to spend hours fixing your track. Yes I didn't have the latest version of the track as it didn't matter. The way I fixed it did not require any changes to the track surfaces. It required a trick I learned while building Riverside. The point of the video was to show the exact same procedure I used for Mountainpeak worked for Daytona which you said would not work.

So lets look at the latest updated track and updated line.

All areas marked as bad can and usually do cause erratic behavior from the AI. They suddenly think the track gets wider and they think they can go there for a split second to pass someone. Then the gap closes and they quick snap back to their original line. You can see it in my video just after the pit exit.

But anyway I'll admit I went a bit over the top here but I'll only apologize if I was wrong. I am not wrong and thus will stand my ground. This is an illegal ripped conversion and the AI is still a disaster...

Oh and I never claimed every track here on RD is clean and legal. I never downloaded those tracks and therefor do not care about them. In this case I downloaded it, saw what it was, reported it. Call me what you want I don't care. But to me a sim community without garbage illegal conversions is a better sim community.

 

[speedrcr]

Good points and perhaps some constructive feedback. Finally. See if you skip the BS it can be a bit more constructive. I'm one of those people that likes to cut to the solution than BS.

As I've detailed before (think several times matter of fact) the mesh is bad to work with in terms of outlining areas for Ai. That's what you get with a "port". It needs to be remade and proper limits stated. Not sure how many other points I have to make where this project wasn't intended for single player usage and was improved upon for better multi-player experience. We improved the ability better for single-player where as before it was unplayable like most ported tracks. It's not perfect for single player, but as far as multi-player which we are mostly concerned with, suits just fine.

As far as being okay with no credit given to the original artist, basically if you knew a few you would know they are usually not given as much credit they are due to start with, under paid for their work, and usually fired or let go after the project, so if you want to state that the artist cares about some "punk" doing this, then you must not be familiar with the industry. I have several friends I've grown up with that live and breathe this industry and we've had conversations about this and especially this project. 5 of the 7 them stated the same thing, "I have bigger worries in the world and basically all agree that that's cool that their work would be carried on after the life of the project". The other 2 state, wouldn't care completely. Projects they work on range from EA, Blizzard, Acclaim, etc etc.

I've shared this post with them and gathered their thoughts. Most have stated that your posts on this subject have been overstated and perhaps not conducive for a "game" and your advocacy for the industry has been a mixed bit of ego at best. ("Your opinions on the matter cloud the discussion on what's wrong and not conducive if you want to help, otherwise your mixing BS in the middle of what should be fixed", that's what one of my friends stated best, that's from a developer, specifically a program manager.)

As far as the legal stretch of it, if you bought and downloaded the game and ported that material for personal use, you maybe up against the EULA. But if the material has become readily available by other means (YouTube, reddit, etc etc) they are considered "commonly available" and while a person may have the materials readily available, the EULA does not apply and are not bound by it. This is what some companies fear the EULA only has so far to reach. Hence why most game materials are download mostly now and you need to agree to some kind of agreement.

As far as me spending months on something and someone else goes and modified my stuff..first well it happens in ArmA all the time. Secondly, someone might actually do a better job and if that's the case and I or someone else enjoys it, that's progress. My personal ego could give a care. Some others I guess like yourself take it a bit more personal and there's an ego element.

 

[Tom Blackett]

Great track illegal or not. Hope further improvements can be achieved.

 

[LilSki]

Good points and perhaps some constructive feedback. Finally. See if you skip the BS it can be a bit more constructive. I'm one of those people that likes to cut to the solution than BS.

As I've detailed before (think several times matter of fact) the mesh is bad to work with in terms of outlining areas for Ai. That's what you get with a "port". It needs to be remade and proper limits stated. Not sure how many other points I have to make where this project wasn't intended for single player usage and was improved upon for better multi-player experience. We improved the ability better for single-player where as before it was unplayable like most ported tracks. It's not perfect for single player, but as far as multi-player which we are mostly concerned with, suits just fine.

As far as being okay with no credit given to the original artist, basically if you knew a few you would know they are usually not given as much credit they are due to start with, under paid for their work, and usually fired or let go after the project, so if you want to state that the artist cares about some "punk" doing this, then you must not be familiar with the industry. I have several friends I've grown up with that live and breathe this industry and we've had conversations about this and especially this project. 5 of the 7 them stated the same thing, "I have bigger worries in the world and basically all agree that that's cool that their work would be carried on after the life of the project". The other 2 state, wouldn't care completely. Projects they work on range from EA, Blizzard, Acclaim, etc etc.

I've shared this post with them and gathered their thoughts. Most have stated that your posts on this subject have been overstated and perhaps not conducive for a "game" and your advocacy for the industry has been a mixed bit of ego at best. ("Your opinions on the matter cloud the discussion on what's wrong and not conducive if you want to help, otherwise your mixing BS in the middle of what should be fixed", that's what one of my friends stated best, that's from a developer, specifically a program manager.)

As far as the legal stretch of it, if you bought and downloaded the game and ported that material for personal use, you maybe up against the EULA. But if the material has become readily available by other means (YouTube, reddit, etc etc) they are considered "commonly available" and while a person may have the materials readily available, the EULA does not apply and are not bound by it. This is what some companies fear the EULA only has so far to reach. Hence why most game materials are download mostly now and you need to agree to some kind of agreement.

As far as me spending months on something and someone else goes and modified my stuff..first well it happens in ArmA all the time. Secondly, someone might actually do a better job and if that's the case and I or someone else enjoys it, that's progress. My personal ego could give a care. Some others I guess like yourself take it a bit more personal and there's an ego element.

This is as constructive as I am going to get. This is how you fix it without having to re-mesh the whole track.
http://www.racedepartment.com/threads/riverside-international-raceway.122818/page-5#post-2290079

 

[speedrcr]

Thanks for keeping it simple. Very helpful!

 

[ltcars]

First can you fight in a privat chat and not here and second maybe you can look how assetto corsa did the ai at the monza oval. I have never edited ai or track surfaces before but maybe it´s worth taking a look.